SynthesisSystematic reviews2015
Nebulised dornase alfa versus placebo or hypertonic saline in adult critically ill patients: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Characteristics and Role of Neutrophil Extracellular Traps in Asthma.Inflammation · 2022Pooled it
- Article
- Nursing Practice of Airway Care Interventions and Prone Positioning in ICU Patients with COVID-19-A Dutch National Survey.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Impact of Clinical, Unit-Specific Guidelines on Dornase Alfa Use in Critically Ill Pediatric Patients Without Cystic Fibrosis.Hospital pharmacy · 2020Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNebulised dornase alfa is used off-label in critically ill patients. We aimed to assess the benefits and harms of nebulised dornase alfa versus placebo, no prophylaxis, or hypertonic saline on patient-important outcome measures in adult critically ill patients.
methodsWe performed a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) using the Cochrane Collaboration methodology. Eligible trials were randomised clinical trials comparing nebulised dornase alfa with placebo, no prophylaxis, or hypertonic saline. The predefined outcome measures were all-cause mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of stay, and adverse events. Two reviewers independently assessed trials for inclusion, data extraction, and risk of bias. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated by conventional cumulative meta-analysis, and the robustness of the primary estimate was assessed by TSA.
resultsTwo trials (n = 63) were included; both were judged to have high risk of bias. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality (random effects model RR (95 % CI) 0.73 (0.09-5.77); P = 0.24; I (2) = 30 %). TSA could not be conducted because less than 1 % of the required information size had been accrued. None of the two trials reported adequate and detailed data on any of the secondary outcome measures.
conclusionsWe found very low quantity and quality of evidence for use of nebulised dornase alfa in adult critically ill patients in this systematic review with meta-analysis. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), no. CRD442015016047.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.